Wow. Fascinating. I am actually digging all this historical info. I will be incorporating a lot of it into a lecture that I give every so often on the history of armor and chivalry.

One of the most important parts of "chivalry" as I like to think of it is the part that says that might does not make right, it should serve right.

In other words, just because your black belt training has given you the power to conquer another country, beat up everyone who looks at you funny, or take the other kid's lunch money, doesn't mean you should do it, rather you should use your power to stop people from doing that sort of thing.

Sportsmanship yes, chivalry no. Any consistent moral code within a culture or sub-culture like MA's would heavily conflict with the emphasis on individual freedom, such as western society, would either become wildly open to interpretation. Not to mention the philosophical range that has been introduced in society as well as the rigid gender rolls chivalry thrived on.

Chivalry died because what upheld chivalry was changed in society and no new code was formed to replace it.

Originally Posted by Omega the Merciless

Yeah, listen to the child. *Ducks
Never call that bitch a kid again *block nutz
Especially this time of the month *Ducks again
Because she will go Sinead O'Connor on your ass *runs.

Wow. Fascinating. I am actually digging all this historical info. I will be incorporating a lot of it into a lecture that I give every so often on the history of armor and chivalry.

One of the most important parts of "chivalry" as I like to think of it is the part that says that might does not make right, it should serve right.

In other words, just because your black belt training has given you the power to conquer another country, beat up everyone who looks at you funny, or take the other kid's lunch money, doesn't mean you should do it, rather you should use your power to stop people from doing that sort of thing.

Any thoughts on this?

Let's consider the post I made about the Golden Rule earlier (I don't know if it's still in this thread, or been moved to accompany Wabbit's posts).

The Golden Rule is a fine moral concept, but it is universal and does not depend on my being a martial artist.

I believe everyone should develop and follow moral and ethical codes. I'll leave it to the philosophers on this site to expound on that. I do not believe being a martial artist imposes more obligation on me in regards to morality.

I believe practice of martial arts can improve an individual's confidence in order to act in accordance with a moral/ethical code.

But modern, Western society is complex, and our behaviors are regulated by law, public policy, and unwritten social mores and customs. In this context, I don't believe a martial arts school or system is an appropriate institution to establish a moral/ethical obligation on people.

While I might concede there is a certain appeal in the idea that martial arts practice can reinforce a basic moral/ethical code, especially when teaching children, we must remember that modern martial arts is largely an industry. A quick review of the MABS forum should make it quickly clear why expecting a modern martial arts school to teach -- let alone impose -- a moral and ethical system is potentially dangerous.

>_> there's several pictures proving they did exist, and they were just nicknamed that in reference to the greek myths, as well as several records of them being used as a fighting unit. Unless your hang up is just with the name "Amazon"

Wow. Fascinating. I am actually digging all this historical info. I will be incorporating a lot of it into a lecture that I give every so often on the history of armor and chivalry.

One of the most important parts of "chivalry" as I like to think of it is the part that says that might does not make right, it should serve right.

In other words, just because your black belt training has given you the power to conquer another country, beat up everyone who looks at you funny, or take the other kid's lunch money, doesn't mean you should do it, rather you should use your power to stop people from doing that sort of thing.

Any thoughts on this?

That ethics, not history. (While surely nice on its own behalf.)

I like to compare the idealization of knights with the idealization of Muhammad Ali:

As a fighter, he was a badass mofo with a lot of luck going with his skill, sidelined more than once, a terrible loudmouth, and a notoriously unfaithful husband.
Yet, twenty years later, thanks to selective memory, people generally talk about him as if he was a tremendous rolemodel. (No Ali discussion intended, please.)

The same way, Romanticism would reinvent knights as something else than the raping, murdering, pillaging mercenary leaders they really were.

The same way, Romanticism would reinvent knights as something else than the raping, murdering, pillaging mercenary leaders they really were.

I don't think you've put too fine a point on this.

The acknowledged hero of the First Crusade is Godfrey of Bouillon who took Jerusalem and could've been set up as king. Yet the Fall of Jerusalem is described even by those sympathetic to him as spilling enough blood that the Crusaders sloshed up to their knees in the streets. There is certainly some hyperbole in that description, but the sack of the city was undeniably brutal. He comes off pretty good in the chronicles after all, but he was certainly the murderous, pillaging mercenary captain Pilgrim is describing.

On the other hand, one of the role models held up by Europeans for chivalric behavior during the Middle Ages was Saladin, the Muslim commander during the Second Crusade. Although he was also no stranger to the strategic massacre (e.g. he killed every member of the military orders that he captured after the Battle of Hattin) he was generally regarded as a man of his word and an honorable opponent.

The acknowledged hero of the First Crusade is Godfrey of Bouillon who took Jerusalem and could've been set up as king. Yet the Fall of Jerusalem is described even by those sympathetic to him as spilling enough blood that the Crusaders sloshed up to their knees in the streets. There is certainly some hyperbole in that description, but the sack of the city was undeniably brutal. He comes off pretty good in the chronicles after all, but he was certainly the murderous, pillaging mercenary captain Pilgrim is describing.

That is because Godfrey lives exactly at the border time, just before the concept of literary chivalry is formed.

FTR, the chronicles we read today are NOT what was popular literature about him in the Middle Ages.

The most popular books about the crusades were either the French L'Estoire d'Eracles empereur et la conqueste de la terre d'Outremer or the Spanish La gran conquista de Ultramar, which make for fine adventure novels, themselves being based in different chansons de geste .

A critical discussion of the legitimacy of his acts doesn't occur until modern historians treat with the matter in the 18th century, if I am not mistaken.

As to Richard, the story is different, because his partners in the war effort, the French Franks and the Germans, positively hated him for being an arrogant ****.